It looks like he may take the seat. What an upset that will be to the Dems...and what a message to send if a republican wins a largely democratic state. Obama said he was "shocked." I think the American people are shocked with what Obama is doing with his socialist agenda. Obama went in last minute to endorse Coakley...don't think that helped much.

trace

01-19-2010 6:14 PM

I'm against a supermajority (authoritarianism) of any party. If he wins, hopefully it will be a huge message to the Dems. Hopefully we end up in the middle this time, instead of the far right or left.

wakeboardingdad

01-19-2010 6:27 PM

Coakley just conceded. WooHoo. <BR> <BR>I guess this is what happens, even in a diehard democratic state, when the politicians do what they want instead of what the people want.

fogey

01-19-2010 6:42 PM

<font color="ff0000"><font size="+2"><b>WOOOOOOOOOOOO HOOOOOOOOOOOOO</b></font></font> <BR> <BR>The seat that Ted Kennedy held. <BR>In a state where Dems outnumber Repubs by about 3.5:1. <BR>First Repub senator from MA since Brooke. <BR>Obama CAMPAIGNED FOR COAKLEY while Brown expressly campaigned AGAINST OBAMACARE. <BR> <BR>Unbelievable! And the spin and finger pointing by Dems is going to be fascinating. <BR> <BR>I'm hopin' for some change!

lifetimewarranty

01-19-2010 6:57 PM

All I can say is Happy Cinco de Quatro.

bendow

01-19-2010 7:04 PM

WOW!!! this historic! <BR> <BR>Jeff, I too am curious what the dems are going to say about this

ttrigo

01-19-2010 7:08 PM

isn't she the one who thought that Curt Schilling was a yankee fan or something? <BR>I am pretty sure she sealed her fate with that info in that state. <BR>Romney changed alot of peoples opinions of republicans in that whole region. give it some time.

wakeboardertj

01-19-2010 7:16 PM

Hopefully this is just the beginning, that the American people are going to show how fed up there are with the democratic bs running amok.

magicr

01-19-2010 7:27 PM

I think Massachusetts will wake up tomorrow, and say what the F did we do. I think it was more of a dislike for Coakley, and sending a message about the common people having very little say about the direction of the country. From all I have heard about how conservative he is, he may be a one term senator. <BR> <BR>(It would be just as bizzare as to have Nancy Pelosi becoming Senator of Mississippi, it makes no sense)

trace

01-19-2010 8:07 PM

Wow, democracy really still is a beautiful thing. <BR> <BR>Tides can change very quickly in politics.

jimmy_z

01-19-2010 8:51 PM

I think we are going to see more of this in the coming months and years. <BR> <BR>All incumbents are going to be voted out. No matter what party. We have become wise and no longer adhere to your loyalty of party. <BR> <BR>This is going to be the message from the American People. We are fed up that money has become precedence over the voice of the People. <BR> <BR>We will continue to vote your azzes out of office until you get the message. This has gone on for far to long. <BR> <BR>We the People are going to take back our Nation!!!!! <BR> <BR>Let the Revolution begin.

01-19-2010 9:09 PM

<blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!><font size=1><b>quote:</b></font><p>From all I have heard about how conservative he is, he may be a one term senator. <!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote> <BR> <BR>That may be all the time Republicans need, especially if they get a few more seats. Six years is a long time in politics.

ord27

01-19-2010 9:36 PM

fantastic! <BR>and it sounds like the democrats are still in denial.....! <BR>I love it!

jimmy_z

01-19-2010 10:05 PM

"and it sounds like the democrats are still in denial.....! " <BR> <BR>It is not a matter of Dem vs Rep anymore. Money and lobbyists are in control. Both Dem and Rep values get dramatically blurred when gobs of money are thrown at them. <BR> <BR>The only way to control it, since they wont control it themselves(by limiting terms) is to keep voting out incumbents until they start to vote along their party lines. <BR> <BR>Bipartisanship is a new word created to fool the American People. It perpetuates corporate america to run the show and silence the masses.

wakeworld

01-20-2010 12:05 AM

This thread is gonna get crazy cuz not only does it involve politics, but it hits on religion too since it proves there is a God!! <img src="http://www.wakeworld.com/MB/Discus/clipart/proud.gif" border=0>

bruce

01-20-2010 4:05 AM

YEAH! Glad to see America isn't asleep at the wheel and in a state of delusion. Fire them all!

paulsmith

01-20-2010 6:05 AM

Jim Zarin, that is an excellent and accurate post.

lifetimewarranty

01-20-2010 6:25 AM

Nice David! <BR> <BR>And it proves we aren't just sheeple.

salty87

01-20-2010 6:49 AM

i agree with jimmy too. repubs vs dems is just a distraction to get people bickering about non-sense while they do whatever they can get away with. <BR> <BR>as we saw when george bush polarized the country, the pendulum is going to swing the other way eventually. as long as people are caught up in hating the other side, nothing will get better. <BR> <BR>a rising tide lifts all boats...1 side can't with without the other side and nobody wins while we swing from one extreme to the other.

psudy

01-20-2010 7:36 AM

Reid already said, they will not wait for his paperwork to be filed to vote. It will be outright astonishing if they push through before he takes his seat. It would for sure be the death of the democrats.

bendow

01-20-2010 7:42 AM

^^ the dems would be sacraficing themselves for the November elections if they did that.

denverd1

01-20-2010 7:52 AM

vote 'em out in '10!! WOO HOO!! <BR> <BR>So tired of the two party system. i truly believe that bipartisanship is a BS system as well. While these two sides debate meaningless issues, Americans are led to believe that they are really discussing "the issues". It's one side's smoke and mirrors against the others while the real issues are ignored.

snyder

01-20-2010 7:52 AM

when clinton lost the house and senate in his 1st mid-term he came back to center a bit. I don't think Obama and his crew can do that. i will eat my hat if he says or does anything different. there are just too many people around and in his administration that are hell bent on expanding government control. <BR>all the left sided pundits last night and today are STILL missing the point of the brown election. they're blaming coakley, they're saying, it's NOT about healthcare because >90% of ppl in MA have healthcare so that can't be the issue... <BR>last night howard dean said, A) cloakley lost because she ran a lousy campaign, then B) this is a message that dems aren't tough enough, C) her loss is Bush's fault (i kid you not) then D) in response to a question about the dem's already in a circular firing squad to blame cloakly he said the people blaming others on this are losers...(after having just blamed coakley and bush). <BR> <BR>if they try to push forward and vote to pass the senate version of healthcare before brown is seated there's going to be more than a voter revolt. <BR> <BR>and no, i don't think it's JUST about healthcare. it's about trying to expand gov't too far, spend too much too fast, and a general feeling that NO ONE in washington even CARES about the will of the people any more. Republican OR Democrat!!! <BR> <BR>IT'S THE PEOPLE'S SEAT NANCY.

psudy

01-20-2010 7:53 AM

Or they know they are already screwed, and want to go out with a bang.

snyder

01-20-2010 8:05 AM

I do disagree w/those however, who say the two party system is broke... maybe w/the current crop of power brokers who aren't listening to their constituents, yes, but a two party system is ideal. <BR>we've already seen that a 1 party system doesn't work for that very reason. it promotes hubris. they mistakenly believe they have the blank check to do what they want regardless that many of them were elected w/slim margins. <BR>a 3 or more party system doesn't work either because 1 of 2 things happens, either 2 of the parties are so similar that the 3rd walks away with everything while half the people are divided further, or all 3 share equal power and no one has a clear majority so NOTHING gets done. <BR> <BR>and as for a NO PARTY system, most of us do not have the time or energy to research every facet of these politician's records, beliefs, positions, so that we'd have no idea who we're voting for.in many races today, that is the case anyway, but at least with some kind of party affiliation, you can make a reasonable assumption that that candidate will vote the way you would want them to vote on issues. That's where Obama duped most who voted for him. he campaigned as this centrist, "shed the light", "post-partisan", "open discussions", "heal the wounds" candidate, and he's been nothing like that.

fogey

01-20-2010 9:12 AM

This definitely was NOT a "Republican" victory. If anything, it should serve as a wake-up call for the Republican establishment at least as much as for Democrats. Are they smart enough and capable enough to come up with a solid alternative PLAN to address healthcare issues? My guess is that they're not. <BR> <BR>It also was NOT a repudiation of Democrats, who continue to enjoy a significantly higher approval rating in MA (and everywhere else) than the "Republican" brand. The MA electorate certainly has not written off Obama himself, and that's true across the country, even for people who object to "Obamacare." But this could change, depending on what the lessons he learns from yesterday's events. <BR> <BR>Despite what I'm hearing on progressive talk radio, however, I think it clearly WAS a repudiation of at least the PROCESS the administration and Congressional Democrats have used to conduct the public's business. We don't want Chicago politics scaled up to a national level. In addition, there MAY be a sizable undercurrent of dissatisfaction with some of the administration's policies and priorities.

bigdtx

01-20-2010 9:44 AM

He won because the Democratic candidate was a disaster. She screwed up every chance she got and the party is already flushing her down the drain for it.

bendow

01-20-2010 9:53 AM

"This definitely was NOT a "Republican" victory" <BR> <BR>Uhhhh? How is it not a Republican victory? This is clearly, plain as day, a tremendous victory for Republicans. <BR> <BR>When you have as many left leaning independents vote for a conservative Republican it sends a clear message from the people that they are fed up with the Democrats ramming this BS down our throat without even giving us a chance to chew.

magicr

01-20-2010 9:53 AM

This Democratic loss falls entirely on the shoulders of the Obama administration. Coakly (as horrible as she was) should have won easily. <BR> <BR>Obama in my mind has two problems, he's two weak to get what HE wants done, and he has continued the same old back room old Washington style of politics. Democrat or Republican WERE SICK OF IT. <BR> <BR> <BR>The Current healthcare reform plans in both chambers are crap. For that I'm glad for the Brown election. <BR> <BR>But what do the Reublicans have as an alternative. SQUAT. I figure I'll just go into bankruptcy this way a little faster.

bendow

01-20-2010 9:55 AM

"He won because the Democratic candidate was a disaster. She screwed up every chance she got and the party is already flushing her down the drain for it." <BR> <BR>Yup, that's it! It was Coakleys fault. It had absolutely nothing to do with the Dems big governement agenda

pesos

01-20-2010 9:55 AM

Big D is right, but regardless it's not a bad thing. Anything that shakes things up for these shmucks is a plus! Jeff also makes good points.

wakeworld

01-20-2010 9:59 AM

^^^ Ahhh, lib denial. Today is a good day for the U.S.A.

psudy

01-20-2010 10:07 AM

Its funny to see democrats try and place blame everywhere except where it should be.

pesos

01-20-2010 10:08 AM

Ben, did you even read what Jeff wrote? <BR> <BR>Dave, you don't usually act like a 3rd grader, what's up? Big D is absolutely correct - regardless of what is going on nationally (which obviously had an impact on the state's 51% of voters who are independent), the fact is Coakley still could have won if she had run a decent campaign. She screwed up at every turn. No one said there aren't other factors involved -- so why is pointing out a crappy campaign "lib denial?"

pesos

01-20-2010 10:10 AM

And Psudy, despite your last comment, your earlier one that "or they know they are already screwed, and want to go out with a bang" is sadly likely to hold true. Reid knows he is out next election (his home state can't stand him, surprise surprise) so I wouldn't put it past him to try to rush things through now while he still can.

bendow

01-20-2010 10:24 AM

Wes, no I didn't read what Jeff wrote. I blindy stabbed at the computer screen with my mouse. <BR> <BR>MA is the bluest of the blue states. They should have been able to get a monkey elected...but guess what?! they didn't...and guess why?! Because people are sick and tired of what is going on in DC. The fact that coakleys campaign sucked played only a minor role in her loss, if at all.

wakeworld

01-20-2010 10:24 AM

<blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!><font size=1><b>quote:</b></font><p>He won because the Democratic candidate was a disaster.<!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote>When that is the complete statement, I think very few people would assume this person believes there are "other factors" involved. In fact, it looks like a statement declaring quite confidently that this is the predominant reason for Brown's win. Sorry if I interpreted that post incorrectly, but that seems like a pretty logical conclusion to draw.

psudy

01-20-2010 10:31 AM

I agree Wes. It will be interesting to see what happens when/if they try.

wakeworld

01-20-2010 10:32 AM

There is a big difference between this administration and Clinton's. Clinton realized that when the people spoke, he needed to adjust and listen to them. You can argue whether he did so because that's what a public servant should do or he did it just to get re-elected, but he did do it. <BR> <BR>Unfortunately, this administration appears to be so elitist and condescending, that they truly believe the people are too dumb to know what's good for them and it's their duty to shove what they "know" is good for us down our throats. They believe that years after they make us swallow their bitter pill, we'll be thanking them for their brilliance because the U.S.A. will be in such a wonderful place with the healthcare cup flowing over for everybody.

snyder

01-20-2010 10:48 AM

Let them try to rush it through (as if they haven't already been trying that but can't even agree w/in their own party as to what back-door deals they can all live with).... <BR> <BR>I DARE THEM TO. <BR> <BR>It's not JUST about obamacare, but that's the final straw. <BR> <BR>i have to believe that there are enough level headed dems in both the house and senate that can read the writing on the wall. they are not willing to commit political suicide for pelosi, reid, obama's legacy. <BR> <BR>it's a typical liberal fallacy of symbolism over substance. a few of them would rather pass horrible legislation that could collapse our economy instead of starting over and writing TRUE bipartisan reform that's actually GOOD for America. <BR> <BR>How many people on this forum actually, truly, honestly rate health care for all as their top 1, 2, or 3 issue right now?

jimmy_z

01-20-2010 11:08 AM

You think Coakleys campaign was any worse than the scandals Ted Kennedy endured in his campaigns??? <BR> <BR>Not even close. And yet he was voted in time and time again since 1972. <BR> <BR>There is a clear message here. And it should have both parties in a panic. <BR> <BR>We the People did not want a stimulus package and We do not want healthcare reform. It has fallen on deaf ears in Washington. <BR> <BR>I guess they are all listening now. <BR> <BR>Kudos to all Massachusetts voters!!!!

This reminds me of back in the election when Ron Paul was resonating with a lot of people, even libertarian-style lefties like myself. I had a friend working for Reid and I told him the Dems better pay close attention to what was happening around Paul because a lot of it rang true even with someone like myself who has basically voted Dem all his life. <BR> <BR>Obviously they did NOT pay attention, which is a shame. I think they had a chance to succeed and inspire and instead they handled Obama's first year about as ineptly as possible.

barry

01-20-2010 1:37 PM

Jim Z, <BR>Really.. so that's what you got out of my profession of doubt, that I don't vote? <BR> <BR>Thankfully I exercised restraint and didn't post a full sentence, you might have figured out my entire political position.

innov8

01-20-2010 1:59 PM

Last night was great for America, thank you to the voters of Massachusetts!!

I am glad that the dems are in denial <BR> <BR>that will make the 2010 elections all the sweeter <BR> <BR>keep sayin it had nothing to do with Obama and the democratic party <BR> <BR>works for me<img src="http://www.wakeworld.com/MB/Discus/clipart/wink.gif" border=0>

ord27

01-20-2010 5:08 PM

Obama criticized the man for driving a GM pickup. <BR> <BR>now there's a president that in touch with the common folk

pesos

01-20-2010 5:15 PM

Hmm my post disappeared. How about: I would respectfully court both Brown daughters. <BR> <BR>Cliff, he did not criticize Brown for driving a GM pickup. He criticized him for pandering to people by buying an old pickup and driving it around as if it were actually the vehicle he usually drives, and then "parking it on wall street." His comment was don't fall for the pandering, "anyone can buy a pickup."

wakeboardingdad

01-20-2010 5:16 PM

"and want to go out with a bang" <BR> <BR>While it appears they are not going to pull the trigger, since they all know it would polical suicide, I do not think that quote was too far from the truth. It wasn't that long ago while all the dems posed with huge smile "making history" trying to pass something that none of the American people seemed to want in the first place. It seems they are all self absorbed ego maniacs!

zo1

01-20-2010 5:23 PM

<b>Obama criticized the man for driving a GM pickup. </b> <BR> <BR>you can't be serious. Kinda funny since he bought GM for all of us. good job tool.

bendow

01-20-2010 6:05 PM

It seems like Obama's endorsements aren't worth too much. <BR> <BR>Didn't work of with the olympics and didn't work out with his own party.

I agree that it is in pretty poor taste to satirize the death of an innocent girl. <BR> <BR>That said, Ted Kennedy's role in her death and the perception and treatment of him after is a perfect example of most everything that is wrong with politics in this country.

good to know that Obama still doesn't get it. in his interview w/stephanopolus (i haven't seen the whole thing, just clips of it on GMA while getting dressed for work) he basically said, the brown election was bush's fault, and that the people are too thick to understand their healthcare reform, (paraphrasing) "i've learned in washington that you gotta say things over and over.... the message can't penetrate" e.g. we're just to thick to see that this really is good for us..... just trust them... <BR> <BR>go back to the drawing board, take the good ideas that AMERICA supports (not your back-door deals to buy votes) slow the hell down, and pass meaningful reform. Healthcare is not a right, but yes it can be made more affordable (but not on the backs of one group to support another)... and yes insurance companies need to have a reality check. that doesn't mean you have a blank check to take over the whole process.

fogey

01-21-2010 8:43 AM

He hasn't held a press conference since July (!), again following a deplorable Bush example. Appearing on TV shows that are echo chambers for progressive ideas isn't the same thing. Maybe that's part of the reason his message "isn't getting out" - or that the <i>people'</i> message <i>isn't getting in</i>.

paulsmith

01-21-2010 8:52 AM

I agree, Jeff. Deplorable!

ifishok

01-21-2010 4:35 PM

I'm sorry if I offended you guys, I hope this will bring peace to the Non-Wakeworld.<img src="http://www.wakeworld.com/MB/Discus/clipart/rofl.gif" border=0> <BR><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8t9Zz5q4gzA" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8t9Zz5q4gzA</a> <BR> <BR>(Message edited by ifishok on January 21, 2010)